SSAC

GAC

Read in Your Preferred Language

ICANN Policy Update is available in all six official languages of the United Nations. Policy Update is posted on ICANN's web site and available via online subscription. To receive the Update in your Inbox each month, visit the ICANN subscriptions page, enter your e-mail address, and select "Policy Update" to subscribe. This service is free.

1. Nearly 4,000 Now Subscribe to Policy Update Newsletter

At a Glance

ICANN's online monthly newsletter increased its subscribers by more than 40 percent since last year at this time. At the end of September 2012, just two fewer than 4,000 individuals subscribed to the email newsletter; the year prior, subscribers numbered 2,828.

Recent Developments

Subscribers to Policy Update have steadily increased over the past year. The English language version draws the most readers, followed by Spanish and French. The newsletter is available also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian.

Figure 1 - Total Policy Update Subscribers at Month End

Background

Each monthly issue of Policy Update provides the latest status of issues working their way through the community-based, consensus-driven policy development processes within ICANN. This newsletter accommodates ICANN Newcomers and veterans by also providing high-level explanations of a broad range of policy development activities, detailed updates on specific issues, and links to more information.

Trademark Clearinghouse Documents. Draft guidelines for implementing matching rules and proof of use verification in order to protect trademark rights during initial allocation and registration periods for new gTLDs. Comment period closes 15 October 2012; reply period closes 7 November 2012.

Proposed Bylaws Amendments to Align Board Terms. The Board of Directors seeks to begin all Board terms at the conclusion of Annual Meeting instead of twice yearly. Comment period closes 22 October 2012; reply period closes 13 November 2012.

Community Input and Advice Process. Submit your suggestions as to how the Board could receive comment or advice from the community. Comment period closes 25 October 2012; reply period closes 14 November 2012.

Community Input Draft 2013-2016 Strategic Plan. As part of its latest round of strategic planning, ICANN leadership is looking for input into this year's draft Strategic Plan. Comment period closes 13 November 2012; reply period closes 4 December 2012.

For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed and archived public comment forums, visit the Public Comment web page.

ccNSO

3. Follow @ccNSO on Twitter

At a Glance

The ccNSO is now tweeting.

Recent Developments

In order to reach out to as many Community members as possible with ccTLD related information, the ccNSO opened a twitter account.

Next Steps

Gain as many followers as possible!

Background

The ccNSO Program Working Group, which is in charge of setting the ccNSO meeting agendas, looked at ways to reach more community members and decided to try to start tweeting meeting information. However, as Twitter is a good information tool, it will be used between the meetings for information sharing.

More Information

Staff Contact

4. ICANN Draft Agenda for ccNSO Posted

At a Glance

The latest draft agenda for the ccNSO meeting at ICANN 45 in Toronto, covering activities for Tuesday, 16 October, and Wednesday, 17 October 2012 is posted for review.

Recent Developments

The latest draft agenda provides an overview of what to expect during the ccNSO meetings at ICANN 45 in Toronto this month. Though technically a "Members Meeting," the ccNSO meetings are actually open for anyone interested to attend. Among the activities are a meeting with the ICANN Board, a panel discussion on Registry Principles and a session on internationalized domain names.

Next Steps

The draft agenda will be continuously updated with speakers, exact titles, summaries and documents. Check back often!

Background

The ccNSO Program WG aims to publish the ccNSO membership meeting agendas as soon as possible, so that the community knows what to expect from the upcoming ICANN meeting.

In the extraordinary nominations to fill the seat of Juhani Juselius, Katrina Sataki, .lv and Andrei Kolesnikov, .ru were nominated.

Next Steps

As there are two candidates in the regular nomination period for the Asia-Pacific region, an election will be held, starting 29 October 2012.

As there are also two candidates resulting from the extraordinary nomination period to fill Juhani Juselius' seat, an election will also be held for this seat, starting 29 October 2012.

Background

The regular nomination period to the Council occurs once a year, during which the standing Councilors can either be reelected, or step down.

The extraordinary nomination period takes place only when a Councilor decides to leave his seat prior to the end of the term. In this case, Juhani Juselius decided to step down 2 ½ years prior to the end of his term.

More Information

Staff Contact

6. Take part in Whois Technical Requirements Survey

At a Glance

The Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) invites the Internet community to participate in a survey designed to measure support of different Whois technical components, such as a standard data structure for Whois responses.

Recent Developments

From now until 31 October 2012, members of the Internet community with knowledge of Whois are invited to participate in a survey measuring support for possible future technical requirements, such as standardized error messages and handling of error conditions.

You do not need to complete the survey, which is lengthy, in one session. You may create an ID and return to the survey at a later time to complete it. The survey tool will save all answers completed from the time the survey was last accessed. However, if you quit the survey without creating or submitting an ID, the session may time-out with an increased risk your answers will be lost.

Many sections of this survey require a high degree of technical skill around Whois. If you're not sure you understand a question or possess the technical knowledge to answer it appropriately, then you are welcome to skip the question and move on to the next one.

Next Steps

You can take the English-language survey from now through 31 October 2012, 23:59 UTC. It consists of 15 sections around 11 technical requirements.

The WSWG will tally the results and deliver a final report and any agreed-upon recommendations to the GNSO Council toward the end of 2012.

Background

The survey measures the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the Whois Service Requirements Report [PDF, 633 KB], as requested of ICANN staff by the GNSO Council.

More Information

Staff Contact

7. Update on Protection of Red Cross, International Olympic Committee and IGO Names in New gTLDs

At a Glance

ICANN staff published the Final Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of certain international organizations in the top and second levels of new gTLDs including, International Government Organizations (IGOs) and Non-Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In addition, the GNSO IOC/RC Drafting Team has published a proposal to protect RCRC and IOC names at the second level in new gTLDs, which is now open for public comment.

Define the type of organizations that should be evaluated in any related Policy Development Process (PDP) recommending additional protections for international organization names at the top and/or second level of new gTLDs.

Describe how a PDP, if initiated, could be structured to analyze whether ICANN should adopt policies to protect the names of such organizations at the top and/or second level.

The Final Issue Report provides the following recommendations:

Initiate an expedited PDP to determine whether there is a need for special protections for certain international organizations including, IGOs and NGOs including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and the IOC at the top and second level in new gTLDs. If so, then develop recommendations for such protections.

Formally invite the representatives of IGOs, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and IOC to participate in the PDP Working Group.

Consider expanding the scope of any additional protections for International Organization names and acronyms developed for the top and second levels in new gTLDs to existing gTLDs.

This proposal to protect RCRC and IOC names at the second level in the first round of new gTLDs includes two recommendations:

Initiate an expedited PDP as the necessary process to determine the appropriate protections for the IOC/RCRC names.

Implement a temporary reservation of RCRC and IOC second level domain names in new gTLDs pending the completion of a PDP outcome or an ICANN Board resolution.

Next Steps

During the ICANN Public Meeting in Toronto, the GNSO Council will discuss the Final Issue Report at its working session on 13 October. The Council is expected to vote on whether to initiate a PDP during the GNSO Public Council Meeting on 17 October.

The Reply Period for the Public Comment Forum closes on 9 November 2012. The GNSO Council will discuss this proposal at its working session on 13 October during the ICANN Public Meeting in Toronto.

Staff Contact

8. GNSO Council Considers Advice to Board on Terms, Metrics for Assessing Competition, Trust, and Choice in Expanded TLD Space

At a Glance

This month the GNSO Council will consider advice to the ICANN Board with suggested definitions for consumer trust, consumer choice, and competition and to propose metrics that might be useful to gauge the effectiveness and success of the New gTLD Program. The letter of advice is the result of nearly a year of deliberation, public sessions, a review of public comments and updates at ICANN meetings in Senegal, Costa Rica and the Czech Republic.

Recent Developments

The terms "Consumer," "Consumer Trust," "Consumer Choice," and "Competition" were defined and agreed upon by the Consumer Metrics Working Group. Additionally, metrics and three-year targets were created by the WG for each definition. Three classes of metrics can be summarized as follows:

Consumer Trust Metrics - which encompass (1) consumer confidence in the registrations and resolution of the TLD/DNS and (2) the degree of confidence consumers have that TLD Operators are fulfilling their stated promises and complying with applicable national laws.

Consumer Choice Metrics - which are meant to measure the range of options available to consumers by clear and transparent ways so that users can make meaningful distinctions when choosing TLDs. Potential indicators for defensive registrations are also defined.

Competition Metrics – these metrics are designed to measure the actual market rivalry of TLDs, TLD Operators, Service Providers, and Registrars.

The final version of the Consumer Metrics Advice Letter was submitted to the GNSO Council on 17 August 2012 and was introduced at the 13 September 2012 GNSO Council teleconference. To date, ALAC has endorsed the advice, and the GAC and ccNSO are still considering their positions.

Background

The Consumer Metrics Working Group was formed in September 2011 and is comprised of GNSO and ALAC community members. The WG was tasked to provide the ICANN Board and the community with suggested definitions for consumer trust, consumer choice, and competition and to propose metrics that might be useful to gauge the effectiveness and success of the New gTLD Program.

ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments calls for a review to be conducted one year following the first new gTLD delegations. In advance of the review, the ICANN Board asked in December 2010 for advice from the SOs and ACs on establishing these definitions and metrics. It is anticipated that this effort will play a critical role in informing the ICANN community about the extent to which gTLD expansion has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice within the Internet marketplace.

Next Steps

The GNSO Council will consider the Advice Letter and respond to a motion about delivery of the letter to the ICANN Board at the ICANN Public Meeting in Toronto.

Staff Contact

At a Glance

At its meeting in Toronto this month, the GNSO Council will consider ICANN staff's recommendation for a Policy Development Process on whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for ICANN agreements. They will also consider recommendations about how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse, such as cybersquatting, gripe sites, and fake renewal notices.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

ICANN staff found that:

Existing Registry Agreements generally do not include specific provisions to address abuse.

To the extent existing agreements address activities that might be defined as abuse, there is little in the way of common language across agreements to identify those activities.

Where registries include specific provisions for dealing with various types of abuse, there is evidence that the provisions can be effective.

Regardless of whether the agreements contain registration abuse provisions, registration abuse still exists in the domain name industry.

Having concluded that the issue is considered within scope, staff recommended that the Council initiate a Policy Development Process on this topic. Should the PDP proceed, staff suggests in the Final Issue Report that the Working Group that would be formed following the initiation of the PDP should conduct further research, as follows, to:

Understand if registration abuses are occurring that could be addressed more effectively if consistent registration abuse policies were established

Determine if and how (registration) abuse is dealt with in those registries (and registrars) that do not have in place any specific provisions or policies to address abuse

Identify how registration abuse provisions, where they exist, are implemented in practice and whether they are effective in addressing registration abuse

Background

The GNSO Council asked ICANN staff to prepare an Issue Report on the topic of Uniformity of Contracts, as a required preliminary step before deciding whether to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP). The staff reviewed 17 different gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements to determine whether abuse provisions were included consistently across all. The initial findings were published in a Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse [PDF, 683 KB], which was published for public comment.

Staff Contact

10. IRTP Part C Final Report Published: Recommendations for New Change of Registrant Policy, Time-Limiting Form of Authorization, Requiring Registries to use IANA IDs

At a Glance

The aim of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO Council is reviewing and considering revisions to this policy through a series of Working Groups. The IRTP Part C WG has published its Final Report.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

Following review of the comments received on its Initial Report [PDF, 1.23 MB], the WG has now submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration. In addition to background information, an overview of the WG's deliberations and community input received to date, the Final Report [PDF, 1.9 MB] contains the following four recommendations:

Charter Question A Recommendation #1 - The IRTP Part C WG recommends the adoption of change of registrant consensus policy, which outlines the rules and requirements for a change of registrant of a domain name registration. Such a policy should follow the requirements and steps as outlined in the section 'proposed change of registrant process for gTLDs' in the Final Report.

Charter Question B Recommendation #2: The WG concludes that FOAs, once obtained by a registrar, should be valid for no longer than 60 days. Following expiration of the Form of Authorization (FOA), the registrar must re-authorize (via new FOA) the transfer request. Registrars should be permitted to allow registrants to opt-into an automatic renewal of FOAs, if desired. In addition to the 60-day maximum validity restriction, FOAs should expire if there is a change of registrant, or if the domain name expires, or if the transfer is executed, or if there is a dispute filed for the domain name. In order to preserve the integrity of the FOA, there cannot be any opt-in or opt-out provisions for these reasons for expiration of the FOA.

As recommended and approved as a result of the IRTP Part B PDP, Losing Registrars under IRTP-B are now required to send an FOA to a Prior Registrant. The WG advises that Losing Registrars have the option to send a modified version of this FOA to a Prior Registrant in the event that the transfer is automated where the FOA would be advisory in nature.

Finally, during the course of its deliberations on this topic, the WG notes that the use of EPP Authorization Info (AuthInfo) codes has become the de facto mechanism for securing domain transfers and thereby replaced some of the reasons for the creation of the standard FOA. The WG recommends that the next IRTP PDP examines whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need for FOAs.

Charter Question C: - Recommendation #3: The WG recommends that all gTLD Registry Operators be required to publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID in the TLD's Whois. Existing gTLD Registry operators that currently use proprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they must also publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID. This recommendation should not prevent the use of proprietary IDs by gTLD Registry Operators for other purposes, as long as the Registrar of Record's IANA ID is also published in the TLD's Whois.

Additional Recommendation - Recommendation #4: As recommended as part of the revised GNSO Policy Development Process, the IRTP Part C Working Group strongly encourages the GNSO Council to create an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team consisting of individual IRTP Part C Working Group members who would remain available to provide feedback on the implementation plan for the recommendations directly to ICANN staff. The Working Group suggests that consideration be given to consulting recognized security experts (such as interested members of the SSAC) by the Implementation Review Team.

The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Report and its recommendations for adoption. The IRTP Part C WG has scheduled a meeting at the ICANN Meeting in Toronto to present the Final Report and its recommendations to the community.

Background

The IRTP is a GNSO consensus policy that was adopted in 2004 with the objective to provide registrants with a transparent and predictable way to transfer domain name registrations between registrars. As part of its implementation, it was decided to carry out a review of the policy in order to determine whether it was working as intended or whether there are any areas that would benefit from further clarification or improvement. As a result of this review, a number of issues were identified that were grouped together in five different policy development processes or PDPs, titled A to E, that are being addressed in a consecutive order.

The IRTP Part C PDP Working Group considered the following three questions:

"Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.

Whether provisions on time-limiting the Form Of Authorization (FOA) should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.

Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

Staff Contact

11. NCUC Hosts Policy Conference on Eve of ICANN 45

At a Glance

The GNSO's Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is holding a policy conference, ICANN & Internet Governance Security and Freedom in a Connected World, on Friday, 12 October at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto, Canada to explore ICANN and Internet governance.

Recent Developments

NCUC's policy conference will include discussions on the promotion of cyber-security and human rights on the Internet, multistakeholderism and the role of governments, and key policy issues surrounding new top-level domains such as freedom of expression and intellectual property rights.

Ron Deibert from The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto will address the conference, and other confirmed speakers include ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé, governmental representatives, members of ICANN's Board of Directors, civil society and Internet business leaders.

More Information

Staff Contact

12. Community Explores Multistakeholder Process From the NGO Perspective in Toronto

At a Glance

On Wednesday 17 October at the ICANN Public Meeting in Toronto, the GNSO's Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC), with strong cooperation from the At-Large community, is organizing a panel discussion on the Multistakeholder process at ICANN.

Recent Developments

The Multistakeholder Process (MSP) has been used worldwide for decades by many organizations like ICANN and various social and economical development programs to foster consensus between diverging interests in the public domain, the private sector and civil society. There is a wide body of applied knowledge on the MSP that merits wider dissemination and understanding. A panel of specialists will share some of this knowledge and foster a discussion on how the MSP can be improved at ICANN.

More Information

Staff Contact

13. Comment Now on IANA Allocation of Returned IPv4 Address Space

At a Glance

Now through 25 October 2012, you can give input on how the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority reallocates returned IPv4 address space to the Regional Internet Registries.

Recent Developments

ICANN has announced a Public Comment Period relating to the implementation of GPP-IPv4-2011: Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA.

The policy provides a mechanism for the redistribution of IPv4 address space returned to an IANA-managed pool. Once active, address space in this Recovered IPv4 Pool can be allocated, in equal shares, to the five RIRs.

The IANA reports that the RIRs have so far returned approximately 1¼ of /8s of address space in almost 150 prefixes.

The Comment Period will remain open until 23:59 (UTC) 25 October 2012.

Background

The ICANN Board announced ratification of GPP-IPv4-2011 on 17 May 2012. The proposal had reached consensus in all Regional Internet Registry (RIR) regions and was reviewed by the Number Resources Organization Executive Committee and the ASO Address Council prior to transmission to the ICANN Board on 13 March 2012.

More Information

Staff Contact

At a Glance

In addition to its regular meetings, the At-Large Community will celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Regional At-Large Structures at the North American Regional At-Large Organization's outreach event. More than 18 representatives from NARALO At-Large Structures are expected to attend four capacity building sessions, joint sessions with the ICANN Fellows and other events.

Recent Developments

Representatives from the At-Large community will hold 26 meetings during the 45th ICANN Meeting scheduled to take place in Toronto, Canada 14-19 October 2012. These meetings include their traditional policy meetings, At-Large Working Group Meetings, and meetings with the ICANN Board of Directors.

They will also be welcoming over 18 representatives of NARALO At-Large Structures who will be participating in the NARALO Toronto Events. This will be a series of meetings consisting of four capacity building sessions, four joint sessions with the ICANN Fellows, a General Assembly and an Outreach Event.

The NARALO Outreach Event entitled: An Evening with At-Large - Honoring the RALOs will be celebrating the 5 Year Anniversary of the five Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs). This event is scheduled forMonday, 15 October between 19:00-20:30 in the Regatta Meeting Room. This event will include a series of speakers including Fadi Chehadé, ICANN President and CEO; Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair; Patrick Ryan, Policy Counsel, Open Internet for Google; Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of Afilias; and David Fowler, Director of Marketing and Communications, Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA). The event will conclude with traditional Canadian Metis music and dancers.

The ALAC will be busy in policy development activities in 26 At-Large meetings, which include:

In addition, the At-Large community members will also participate actively in many of the other meetings taking place during the ICANN meeting in Toronto either in person or using remote participation tools.

Staff Contact

15. ALAC Policy Advice Update

At a Glance

ALAC continued its high rate of publishing statements in response to ICANN public comments periods as well as comments and communications. Since January 2012, the ALAC has submitted 37 statements, comments and communications.

Recent Developments

The ALAC policy advice statements and communications submitted between September and mid-October are:

At a Glance

SSAC published a comment on 14 September 2012 on the Whois Policy Review Team Final Report and Recommendations. The ICANN Board had earlier passed a resolution requesting that Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide input on the report.

Recent Developments

SSAC's published comments on the Whois Policy Review Team Final Report offering three recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors.

The Board should pass a resolution clearly stating the criticality of the development of a registration data policy defining the purpose of domain name registration data, and

The Board should direct the CEO to create a registration data policy committee that includes the highest levels of executive engagement to develop a registration data policy that defines the purpose of domain name registration data, as described elsewhere in this document; and

The Board should explicitly defer any other activity (within ICANN's remit) directed at finding a "solution" to "the Whois problem" until the registration data policy identified in its first and second recommendations has been developed and accepted by the community.

In its comment document the SSAC said it:

"believes that the foundational problem facing all 'Whois' discussions is understanding the purpose of domain name registration data. The lack of progress in the "Whois" debate is not surprising, given this fundamental disconnect on what problem is being solved. It adds that the answers to common questions about the "Whois" should be derived from a clear statement of the problem to be solved. To the extent that the answers are different among various use cases, solutions will likely be different. To the extent that the solutions are different, a single universal 'Whois' policy, as defined in the Review Team's report, is unlikely to be effective or even achievable. The SSAC believes that there is a critical need for a policy defining the purpose of collecting and maintaining registration data. This policy should address the operational concerns of the parties who collect, maintain or use this data as it relates to ICANN's remit."

Finally, the SSAC stated that it:

believes that a single consensus policy answering at least the questions listed above is achievable and the essential first step toward any 'solution' to 'the Whois problem.' It is within ICANN's remit to work collaboratively with the community to retroactively establish this policy. The SSAC believes that the formation of a properly authorized committee to drive solutions to these questions first, and to then derive a universal policy from the answers, is the appropriate sequence of steps to address the Whois Review Team's report.

Background

On 11 May 2012, the Whois Policy Review Team, formed under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, submitted its Final Report and Recommendations [PDF, 1.44 MB] to the ICANN Board. On 23 June 2012, the ICANN Board of Directors passed a resolution encouraging public input on the Final Report and Recommendations, and requesting that the ICANN supporting organizations and advisory committees provide input to the Board. The 14 September 2012 Comment is the SSAC's input to the Board.

More Information

Staff Contact

17. Where to Find GAC Information

At a Glance

ICANN receives input from governments through the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The GAC's key role is to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. The GAC usually meets three times a year in conjunction with ICANN meetings, where it discusses issues with the ICANN Board and other ICANN Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and other groups. The GAC may also discuss issues between times with the Board either through face-to-face meetings or by teleconference.

A note about tracking cookies:

This notice is intended to appear only the first time you visit the site on any computer.Dismiss

Domain Name System

Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as""icann.org"" is not an IDN."